Introduction: Defeat After Victory
Chapter 7 of Sefer Yehoshua is a chapter of downfall. Jericho had only just fallen miraculously, its walls collapsed, and the dread of Israel fell upon all inhabitants of the land - and suddenly a small, painful defeat strikes at a small town named Ai. The entire chapter revolves around one question: how does the sin of a single individual, Achan son of Carmi, drag down the entire Jewish people? From this chapter we learn the principle of mutual responsibility (areivut), the distinction between direct punishment and hester panim (the concealment of the Divine countenance), and the paths of justice through which the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed the sinner.
"And the Children of Israel Trespassed" - All of Israel as One Body
וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מַעַל בַּחֵרֶם וַיִּקַּח עָכָן בֶּן־כַּרְמִי בֶן־זַבְדִּי בֶן־זֶרַח לְמַטֵּה יְהוּדָה מִן־הַחֵרֶם וַיִּחַר־אַף יְהֹוָה בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And the Children of Israel acted treacherously concerning the banned property, and Achan the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the banned property; and the anger of the Lord was kindled against the Children of Israel.
The Malbim immediately addresses the difficulty. The verse opens in the plural - "And the Children of Israel acted treacherously" - as if we would expect to hear of an entire community that violated the ban; yet immediately afterward it turns out that "and Achan took" - a single individual took! And if one person sinned, why was "the anger of the Lord kindled against the Children of Israel"? After all, "Shall one man sin, and You be angry with the entire congregation?"
Rather, the text comes to teach us that all of Israel are considered as a single body. As the Malbim phrases it: the relationship of each man and woman to the collective is like the relationship of a single limb of the body to the entire body. One cannot say of a person who has gangrene in his leg, "It is only the leg; it does not concern the rest of the body." Gangrene in a leg will ultimately poison the entire body and cause death. So too here: what Achan took from the cherem is considered as though the entire nation violated the cherem. Therefore, it states "And the Children of Israel acted treacherously," and only afterward, "and Achan took."
Two Types of Punishment: An Actual Blow and Hester Panim
The Malbim teaches another major principle here. There is a fundamental difference between a direct punishment - an actual blow, damage, and the like - and a punishment brought about through the withdrawal of Divine providence. These are two categories of Heavenly punishment: there is "and the Lord struck a blow upon the people," and there is the punishment of the removal of providence. When the Holy One, blessed be He, punishes directly, He does not punish one who did not sin, but rather the sinner alone. And as we will see in the chapter: Achan sinned and Achan was stoned, and other people were not stoned with him.
This is not so with a punishment resulting from the removal of providence. Such a punishment is far more severe, for then "and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured" - in such a state, everyone is consumed, and the blow falls upon the collective. On account of individuals, the Holy One, blessed be He, hides His face, and then the enemy arrives and strikes. Our Sages have already stated that once permission is granted to the destructive force, it does not distinguish between righteous and wicked. Hester panim is an incomparably graver state.
From here, says the Malbim, Achan alone violated the cherem, yet wrath came upon the entire congregation of Israel, because this was a situation of hester panim. And this explains a profound paradox: Achan violated the cherem, yet those who fell in battle were different people altogether - those who went out to fight at Ai. Where is the justice? The perpetrator was not struck, while those who went out to battle were! Rather, during hester panim, specifically whoever is in harm's way suffers harm, while one who is not currently in the place of danger - even though he is the cause of the entire matter - is not harmed. This is the meaning of "and the anger of the Lord was kindled against the Children of Israel": Hashem withdrew His providence from them, and consequently, the damage befell the community as a whole.
Why Achan's Entire Lineage Is Traced
And why does Scripture enumerate his entire chain of lineage - "the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah"? To teach you that what led him to sin was specifically his distinguished lineage. "Of the tribe of Judah" - a family of royalty, of princes and nobility. Through the prestige of his noble lineage, he became arrogant, and through arrogance he came to do what he did.
Furthermore, in the wake of the sin, prophecy departed from Yehoshua, and therefore he had no idea that someone had violated the ban. Yehoshua assumed that from now on they would have to conquer the Land solely through natural means, and was therefore certain that the battle would be a natural war.
Sending the Spies to Ai
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲנָשִׁים מִירִיחוֹ הָעַי אֲשֶׁר עִם־בֵּית אָוֶן מִקֶּדֶם לְבֵית־אֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ וְרַגְּלוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וַיַּעֲלוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיְרַגְּלוּ אֶת־הָעָי׃ - "Yehoshua sent men from Yericho to Ai, which is near Beit Aven, east of Beit El, and said to them, saying, 'Go up and spy out the land.' And the men went up and spied out Ai."
The Malbim asks: Why does the verse elaborate in informing us of the places adjacent to Ai - "which is near Beit Aven, east of Beit El"? What need is there to mention Beit Aven and Beit El? Furthermore, Yehoshua told them, "and spy out the land," yet they "spied out Ai" - an indication that they did not fulfill precisely what they were commanded.
The Malbim explains: The verse comes to describe how the hand of chance immediately overtook them and their counsel cast them down. The moment divine providence was removed, which was the root cause of all the harm, mistakes immediately began. When providence is lacking, errors commence.
How so? In truth, it was appropriate for all of Israel to go up and fight there. For even though Ai itself was a small city, Beit Aven and Beit El were adjacent to it, and had they paid attention to this, they would have realized that the size of Ai was deceiving: it had satellite cities that would join it when summoned, and consequently a large army was needed. And this indeed happened, as stated later that not a man remained in Ai or Beit El who did not go out after Bnei Yisrael - when they went out to pursue Israel, the men of Beit El joined in as well. This is what they failed to calculate when they said: Ai is a small city, a few are enough.
Yehoshua, however, did calculate this, which is why his phrasing was remarkably precise: he told them, "Go up and spy out the land" - the land in general, the entire surrounding region of Ai, and not just the city itself. Had they scouted the land, they would have seen that there were other cities around it - Beit El and Beit Aven - and they would have determined that a large force was required for this battle. But they did not heed his words; they altered his command and on their own initiative "spied out Ai" alone, and from this they arrived at the erroneous conclusion that the population was small and there was no need for all of Israel.
There was another reason for sending the spies: Yehoshua wanted to know whether kings had assembled there. After the conquest of Yericho, there was concern that all the local kings would come to defend the next city, realizing that before long their turn would come. Therefore he sent men to scout, to discover whether kings had gathered there and determine the strategy of warfare accordingly.
The Counsel of the Spies and the Duplication in Their Words
וַיָּשֻׁבוּ אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַל־יַעַל כָּל־הָעָם כְּאַלְפַּיִם אִישׁ אוֹ כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ יַעֲלוּ וְיַכּוּ אֶת־הָעָי אַל־תְּיַגַּע־שָׁמָּה אֶת־כָּל־הָעָם כִּי מְעַט הֵמָּה׃ - "They returned to Yehoshua and said to him, 'Let not all the people go up; let about two thousand men or about three thousand men go up and strike Ai; do not weary all the people there, for they are few.'"
There is a duplication here: "Let not all the people go up," and again, "do not weary all the people there." The Malbim explains that they phrased their words in two stages. First, they reported back on their mission: You sent us to observe, and we say that there is no need for all the people to go up. Then they added an extra piece of advice: Since there is no need for so many, if you send a large force you will weary the people for nothing; therefore, "do not weary" them - it is not worth having them exert themselves in vain. In other words: first, based on what we observed, there is no need for all the people to go up; and second, if you nevertheless wish to send more, our advice is that it is inadvisable, as it is nothing more than needless weariness.
The Flight Before the Men of Ai
וַיַּעֲלוּ מִן־הָעָם שָׁמָּה כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ וַיָּנֻסוּ לִפְנֵי אַנְשֵׁי הָעָי׃ - So about three thousand men went up there from the people, and they fled before the men of Ai.
The Malbim notes precisely: it does not say that they waged a battle or engaged in combat; it does not say "and the battle was joined" face to face. They went up - and immediately fled. And even though on this occasion neither the people of Beit-el nor the people of Beit-aven helped the men of Ai (Beit-aven did not help later either, whereas the people of Beit-el did assist in the next round), nevertheless, they saw that Israel fled before them.
וַיַּכּוּ מֵהֶם אַנְשֵׁי הָעַי כִּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה אִישׁ וַיִּרְדְּפוּם לִפְנֵי הַשַּׁעַר עַד־הַשְּׁבָרִים וַיַּכּוּם בַּמּוֹרָד וַיִּמַּס לְבַב־הָעָם וַיְהִי לְמָיִם׃ - The men of Ai struck down about thirty-six men among them, and pursued them before the gate as far as the Shevarim and struck them down on the descent; and the heart of the people melted and became like water.
Thirty-Six Men - and the Merit of Avraham Avinu
The Radak cites the teaching of Chazal that the merit of Avraham Avinu stood by them: after all, they were liable for violating the ban, yet the men of Ai struck down only thirty-six men. When Avraham Avinu pursued the kings, he came to that very place and built an altar there - "with Beit-el on the west and Ai on the east," "and he built an altar there to Hashem" - and this merit stood by them now, as the Holy One, blessed be He, remembered his merit.
And what is the meaning of "about thirty-six" (ke-shloshim ve-shishah), with the letter chaf of approximation? Some commentators explain that the chaf is literal - approximately thirty-six men. Yet others say that there were not thirty-six men at all, but rather this was Yair ben Menasheh, who was equal to thirty-six men, which is the majority of the Sanhedrin.
And why were they compelled to interpret it this way? When the chaf of approximation is used with large numbers - "about fifteen hundred men" - it is understandable, since it could be fifteen hundred and twenty-two or fifteen hundred and one. But when dealing with exact numbers, with thirty-six, one does not say "about thirty-six"; if there were thirty-seven, say thirty-seven! You have already descended to exact details, so what room is there for the chaf of approximation? From here, the author of Margaliyot HaYam proves that the verse does not mean thirty-six literally, but rather one who was equal to thirty-six - Yair ben Menasheh, whose wisdom was so great that one could rely on him just as one relies on the majority of the Sanhedrin.
The Malbim resolves this, showing there is no contradiction between the derash and the peshat: indeed, thirty-six men were struck down, and one who was among them was equal to all thirty-six fallen. Thirty-six were struck down, and one of them was equivalent to thirty-six.
"You Shall Cause Them to Inherit" - Yehoshua Remained in the Camp
There is a derash that the Holy One, blessed be He, told Yehoshua, "You shall cause them to inherit" - you, yourself, must be with them and go out at the head of their armies. Yet here Yehoshua sent men and remained behind, and therefore they stumbled. However, since the text later reveals that the defeat was due to the sin of the cherem, the Radak states that there is no need to seek other reasons: the sin of the cherem is entirely sufficient to explain the defeat at Ai.
And what is the meaning of "and pursued them before the gate as far as the Shevarim"? The Metzudat Tzion explains that the place was named after the event: because they were broken there, the place was named "HaShevarim." The Malbim adds that pursuing them all the way to Shevarim demonstrates the extent to which the men of Ai felt powerful and triumphant over them, boldly daring to chase after them all that way. Through this, "the heart of the people melted": Israel calculated - if such a small city can overcome us, what will we do against the cities that are far larger; how will we fight against them?
Yehoshua's Prayer and Dust upon the Head
וַיִּקְרַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל־פָּנָיו אַרְצָה לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן יְהֹוָה עַד־הָעֶרֶב הוּא וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עָפָר עַל־רֹאשָׁם׃ - And Joshua tore his clothes and fell on his face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord until the evening, he and the elders of Israel, and they put dust upon their heads.
The Malbim explains: "And Joshua tore his clothes" - over the dead; "and fell on his face" - in prayer; "and they put dust upon their heads" - as if saying: behold, we are considered like dust.
Our Sages stated: A person is not permitted to fall on his face in prayer unless he is assured of being answered from Heaven like Joshua the son of Nun, because one who falls on his face must be prepared to give his very life. And when they were not answered, they placed dust upon their heads, as if saying: Master of the Universe, if You do not answer us, we are considered dead before You, as it is written, "For dust you are, and to dust you shall return."
Furthermore, through this they sought to recall the merit of Avraham Avinu, who had built an altar there - "An altar of earth you shall make for Me" - and prayed there that his descendants would not fall in battle. This is what is meant by the verse, "And he went on his journeys from the south even to Beth-el, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth-el and Ai; unto the place of the altar which he had made there at first; and Avram called there on the name of the Lord" - meaning he prayed for this very battle of Ai. From here our Sages taught that a person must always precede every event with prayer, for had Avraham not preceded with his prayer there, not a single one of them would have survived that battle.
Another reason for the dust was to invoke the merit of Avraham, who was humble and said, "And I am dust and ashes." They placed dust upon their heads as if to say: unlike our own conduct, in which we acted with arrogance - thinking, "They are few, we will defeat them, it is not a large city" - Avraham Avinu conducted himself with humility, and now we recant and repent.
Joshua's Two Arguments: From the Past and From the Future
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֲהָהּ אֲדֹנָי יְהֹוִה לָמָה הֵעֲבַרְתָּ הַעֲבִיר אֶת־הָעָם הַזֶּה אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּן לָתֵת אֹתָנוּ בְּיַד הָאֱמֹרִי לְהַאֲבִידֵנוּ וְלוּ הוֹאַלְנוּ וַנֵּשֶׁב בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן׃ - And Joshua said: Alas, Lord God, why did You bring this people across the Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites to destroy us? If only we had been content to settle on the other side of the Jordan!
The Malbim explains: Once Joshua saw that God was not going out with our armies - the proof being the defeat - he understood that Hashem had left them to the realm of nature and chance. Regarding this, he came forward with two arguments: one concerning the past, and one concerning the future.
The argument from the past: A nation setting out to conquer other lands does so in one of two situations. Either it is confident that it is stronger than its adversaries and can overcome them, and although it already possesses a homeland, it seeks to expand its borders (much like Russia going against Ukraine, confident that it was merely its backyard and that a two-week blitzkrieg would subdue it, not because it lacked territory or space). Or, the nation has no place to dwell at all, and so goes to war to conquer a homeland, taking genuine risks in the process. One who already has a dwelling place does not take risks unless compelled, whereas for one who has nowhere to live, it is a matter of survival, and he will willingly brave dangers to secure a home.
Accordingly, Joshua argued: "Why did You bring this people across the Jordan... to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites?" - Master of the Universe, if You intended to leave us to chance, so that if the Amorites proved stronger they would defeat us by natural warfare and fortune, then there was always the risk that the Amorites would prevail and destroy us. If so, why did You bring us across here to risk our lives in war? Did we lack a place to live? Indeed, "if only we had been content" - had we so chosen - "to settle on the other side of the Jordan." What was lacking in the eastern bank of the Jordan? We are not a homeless nation that must fight as a matter of sheer survival, willing to sacrifice our lives. We had no compelling reason to endanger ourselves when we already had a place to dwell.
בִּי אֲדֹנָי מָה אֹמַר אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הָפַךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל עֹרֶף לִפְנֵי אֹיְבָיו׃ וְיִשְׁמְעוּ הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְכֹל יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ וְנָסַבּוּ עָלֵינוּ וְהִכְרִיתוּ אֶת־שְׁמֵנוּ מִן־הָאָרֶץ וּמַה־תַּעֲשֵׂה לְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל׃ - Please, my Lord, what can I say, after Israel has turned its back before its enemies? The Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear, and they will surround us and wipe out our name from the earth; and what will You do for Your great Name?
The prayer appears somewhat disjointed: what is the connection between "if only we had been content" and "please, my Lord"? The Malbim explains: Up to this point, Joshua argued from the perspective of the past; from here onward, he argues from the perspective of the future. Even if You intended, Master of the Universe, that we could prevail by natural means because we were stronger than them, and that our defeat was merely due to poor planning, because we sent too few men or relied on our own strength and the like - that logic held true only until now. Up until now, dread of us had fallen upon the inhabitants of the land, and no man retained the spirit to wage war against us, so we could have won even a natural war. But now, after Israel has turned its back before its enemies, the foes realize that if they summon their strength they can overcome us, and their fear of us has vanished. Now they will all unite against us: "The Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear, and they will surround us" - they will form a single coalition - "and wipe out our name," whereas until now we had a reputation among the nations as invincible warriors.
Rashi addresses this difficulty: he begins with "and cut off our name" and concludes with "and what will You do for Your great Name" - what is the connection between our name and Your Name? Rather, the Name of God is partnered within our name, for we are called "Yisrael", and the name "El" is embedded within us. And according to the plain meaning: What will You do for the renown of Your might that has already spread throughout the world, when they will say, "His strength has waned" - behold, in Yericho He still had power, but once He reached Ai, His arsenal seemingly ran out, His weapons were depleted, and He lost His power. What a desecration of Hashem's Name (chillul Hashem) this would be!
And some say that Yehoshua thought the downfall came on account of the sin of Shittim, the sin of harlotry with the daughters of Moav, and therefore he said: It would have been better for us to fall there and not here. For when they fall here and do not understand why, it appears, as it were, that "the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment without justice," whereas there, they would have known why the downfall occurred.
"Kum Lach" - Hashem's Response to Yehoshua
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קֻם לָךְ לָמָּה זֶּה אַתָּה נֹפֵל עַל־פָּנֶיךָ׃ - And Hashem said to Yehoshua: "Arise! Why do you fall on your face?"
Rashi notes precisely that the word is written "קֻם" without a vav, meaning "kam lach" - it stood for you: that which you prayed before Me and mentioned, this merit has stood for you. Another explanation: You stood in the camp and did not go out with them, yet I said, "who will lead them out and who will bring them in" - these were the threshold conditions the Holy One, blessed be He, told Moshe regarding the selection of a leader for Israel, and you did not fulfill them, for you did not go out at the head of their armies, since they were confident that they would easily conquer it. And it is likewise stated, "for you shall bring the children of Israel... and I will be with you" - yet here you did not bring them, and therefore I will not be with you. "Kam lach" - you stood in the camp and remained there without taking action; do not wonder at the results. And this is what is meant by "for he shall cross over before this people, and he shall cause them to inherit": if you yourself march before them, they will succeed, and if not, they will not succeed.
And a third explanation in Rashi: "Kam lach" - it is because of you that this happened to them. I did not tell you to consecrate the spoils of the city. That is: you are held accountable for something you were not commanded to do, for by doing so you caused them to trespass against the dedicated property (cherem), and through this they fell at Ai.
"Israel Has Sinned" - The Threefold Sin
חָטָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגַם עָבְרוּ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתָם וְגַם לָקְחוּ מִן־הַחֵרֶם וְגַם גָּנְבוּ וְגַם כִּחֲשׁוּ וְגַם שָׂמוּ בִכְלֵיהֶם׃ - Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them; and they have also taken of the banned property, and they have also stolen, and they have also denied, and they have also put it into their vessels.
The Malbim explains that the sin here is manifold. First, the essence of the sin: "They transgressed My covenant" - this refers to desecrating Shabbat, for Yericho was conquered on Shabbat; consequently, he carried from a private domain into a public domain and brought it back into a private domain. This is hinted at in "they transgressed My covenant," as it is said concerning Shabbat, "to observe the Shabbat throughout their generations as an eternal covenant." And that which is said, "and they have also taken of the banned property" - they violated the dedications of Heaven, and Shabbat is among the sacred dedications of Heaven.
The second transgression concerns the manner of the sin: "And they have also stolen" - they did not take it openly in public, but through theft and in secret. And through this, "they have also denied," for one who takes by theft and in secret acts as though the Eye Above does not see. Unlike a robber (gazlan) who robs out in the open, a thief (ganav) acts covertly, acting as if the Eye Above does not see, and in this manner they denied and rejected Divine Providence.
And the third element is the purpose and objective of the sin. "People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving" - when a thief steals because he has nothing to eat and is hungry, stealing solely to satisfy his hunger, one does not say he acted properly, but people do not despise him, for they understand that he was starving. However, if he did not need to steal, but stole to amass wealth, the transgression is far more severe. This is what is meant by "and they have also put it into their vessels" - they hid it in the ground, a sign that it was not for the sustenance of his soul, but rather he went and concealed it, making it a theft that was entirely unnecessary for his survival.
The Sin of the Individual and Its Impact on the Community
This verse is foundational, and on several occasions we have cited it to learn the Torah's perspective on the sin of an individual and its impact on the community. Anyone reading the verse without knowing the background would hear: "Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant, and they have also taken of the banned goods, and they have also stolen, and they have also denied, and they have also put it into their vessels." If we were asked what the sin was, we would say: at least a third to a half of the people of Israel went and stole. That is the plain sense of the verse's wording. And similarly the continuation: "And the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies... for they had become accursed; I will not continue to be with you" - implying that large segments of the public violated the ban, and consequently the punishment followed suit. Yet when we examine the facts, we discover that there was only a single person involved. If so, shall one person sin and You be wrathful with the entire congregation?
From here we see that we do not truly grasp the language of the Torah. According to the Torah's idiom, the sin of even a single individual reflects upon the entire collective. We find expression of this in the incident of the Golden Calf: "Go down, for your people whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they have turned aside quickly from the way that I commanded them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said: 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.'" And how many were there? Only three thousand men out of approximately five million. Do the math: it is as if, out of all the Jews in the Land of Israel, we were speaking of a single neighborhood. And yet, the Torah accuses all of Israel of having made the calf.
And why? Because all of Israel are responsible (areivim) for one another. Just as when a person's hand or leg is amputated, one does not say that only the hand or leg is suffering, but rather the entire body suffers; and just as when a person has an issue with their heart, breathing, or any other area, the issue is not localized but affects the whole; and just as gangrene in a single limb can lead to the death of the entire body - so too, the Jewish people are an organic whole, a single entity, and one part cannot be detached from another. Our Sages said that the people of Israel are like a lamb: when one of its limbs hurts, the entire animal hurts. This is also the parable in the Zohar about one who sits in a boat and drills a hole beneath his seat; when reproved, he replies, "What do you care what I do in my own spot? Mind your own business!" - failing to understand that he is drowning everyone.
The Community Is Not Entirely Clean
There is also an additional, deeper dimension here, which we learned in Michtav Me-Eliyahu by Rav Dessler: had the collective been completely clean of the sin, the individual would not have stumbled into it either. If we see that an individual was capable of falling, it is a sign that the collective was also not entirely untainted by that sin. This does not mean that others also took a little; rather, it was enough that a fleeting thought or contemplation crossed their minds - and in that alone, they were no longer entirely pure.
The people of Israel are like a chain: when there is a slight sag at the top of the chain, the bottom end touches the ground. Rav Yisrael Salanter once said: If a yeshivah student slacks off in his learning in Vilna or Lithuania or anywhere else, know that at that very moment, a university student in France decides to convert out of the faith. For if there is a minor descent at the top of the chain, the one at the bottom plunges into the abyss. So too here: if Achan was capable of misappropriating the banned property, it is a sign that the general atmosphere was not entirely one of dread and revulsion toward the ban; had it been so, even Achan would not have been capable of taking from the cherem.
"An Israelite, Even Though He Has Sinned, Remains an Israelite"
From the words "Israel has sinned," our Sages derived: from here you learn that an Israelite, even though he has sinned, remains an Israelite. We have discussed this concept several times: it is always possible to ascend to the status of an Israelite, for a gentile who wishes to do so can convert; but descending from the status of an Israelite is impossible. A Jew who sins and commits the gravest transgressions, converts to another religion, and does whatever he does - nothing changes; he is an Israelite and will remain one. To be sure, the more contaminated and defiled he becomes, the greater the rectification (tikkun) he will require, and ultimately everyone will achieve rectification; how much it will cost him and how much he will suffer until he reaches complete rectification - that only Hashem knows. But there is no such reality as stepping down from the status of an Israelite, where a person says, "From now on I am a gentile." He may define himself that way, but nothing changes: the reality remains that he is an Israelite; he possesses a portion of God from Above, and that portion will remain within him forever.
Five Times "Ve-gam" - The Five Books of the Torah
The word ve-gam ("and also") appears five times in the verse: "and also transgressed," "and also taken," "and also stolen," "and also denied," "and also put." Our Sages say: this teaches that one who violates the cherem is considered as though he violated the Five Books of the Torah. A wonderful allusion to this: if we take the five words that conclude each of the Five Books of the Torah and calculate their first and last letters, their gematria equals 248 (Ramach), which is the numerical value of cherem (חרם). The words are: Mitzrayim (מצרים), Maseihem (מסעיהם), Sinai (סיני), Yericho (יריחו), and Yisrael (ישראל) - the first and last letters of each, totaling 248, matching "cherem." Moreover, one who violates the cherem damages his 248 limbs, which is why they share the very same letters.
Two Types of Failure and Two Paths of Rectification
וְלֹא יֻכְלוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָקוּם לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיהֶם עֹרֶף יִפְנוּ לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֵיהֶם כִּי הָיוּ לְחֵרֶם לֹא אוֹסִיף לִהְיוֹת עִמָּכֶם אִם־לֹא תַשְׁמִידוּ הַחֵרֶם מִקִּרְבְּכֶם׃ - "And the children of Israel could not stand before their enemies; they turned their backs before their enemies, for they had become accursed. I will not continue to be with you unless you destroy the banned goods from among you."
Metzudat David explains "for they have become accursed" - that they were aiding the one who violated the ban. In other words, if you do not act to denounce and remove this deed from your midst, you are considered his accomplices.
The Malbim asks: Why the repetition? First it says, "they cannot stand before their enemies, for they have become accursed," and then "I will no longer be with you unless you destroy the accursed thing" - yet this seems to be the very same thing: you cannot stand before the enemy because I am not with you. Furthermore, in the next verse it says: "You will not be able to stand... until you remove the accursed thing," and does not say "until you destroy."
He explains that the inability to stand before their enemies stems from two separate causes. The first is in the realm of nature, which is "they will turn their backs before their enemies, for they have become accursed" - the inherent nature of the ban is to cast a curse and ruin, weakening them naturally. The inability to stand before the enemy is a direct consequence of taking from the cherem itself; a curse rests upon you simply by taking it. The second cause is a providential punishment: "I will no longer be with you" - to watch over you and rescue you with miraculous salvation - unless you destroy the cherem. Naturally you will fall, and you will also have no special Divine providence.
From this the exact wording of the verses becomes clear: in order for their natural valor to return, it is enough that the banned item is no longer in their midst - take and burn the cherem, and once there is no cherem in your midst, the natural problem is resolved, as it was the ban itself that undermined their natural strength. This is "You will not be able to stand before your enemies until you remove the accursed thing." But this alone does not yet restore Divine providence, and it is not enough: for Hashem to be with us, we must "destroy" the cherem. It is not enough to take the objects and burn them; the transgressor must also be destroyed, purging the sinner from your midst. It is not enough that the banned object no longer exists; the person who committed the deed, Achan himself, must be punished and eradicated - and only then will you merit Divine providence once again.
"Arise, Sanctify the People" - Without Revealing the Punishment
קֻם קַדֵּשׁ אֶת־הָעָם וְאָמַרְתָּ הִתְקַדְּשׁוּ לְמָחָר כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֵרֶם בְּקִרְבְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תוּכַל לָקוּם לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֶיךָ עַד־הֲסִירְכֶם הַחֵרֶם מִקִּרְבְּכֶם׃ - "Arise, sanctify the people, and say, 'Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow, for thus said Hashem, God of Israel: An accursed thing is in your midst, Israel; you will not be able to stand before your enemies until you remove the accursed thing from your midst.'"
"Arise, sanctify the people" - meaning, summon them to prepare. Notice that here it says only "until you remove the accursed thing," and does not mention the second condition - that Hashem will not be among them until they destroy the cherem, which refers to destroying the perpetrator, Achan himself. The Malbim explains: He did not want them to know that whoever violated the ban incurred the death penalty, because if they knew this, they would not reveal who violated it, and the sinner would refuse to confess. Therefore, He did not announce the punishment in advance; had He said "and the sinner shall die," the sinner would have stubbornly refused to confess to the very end - whereas here, it was crucial that there be a confession, as will be explained later.
The Lot: From the Tribes to the Men
וְנִקְרַבְתֶּם בַּבֹּקֶר לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם וְהָיָה הַשֵּׁבֶט אֲשֶׁר־יִלְכְּדֶנּוּ יְהֹוָה יִקְרַב לַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת וְהַמִּשְׁפָּחָה אֲשֶׁר־יִלְכְּדֶנָּה יְהֹוָה תִּקְרַב לַבָּתִּים וְהַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר יִלְכְּדֶנּוּ יְהֹוָה יִקְרַב לַגְּבָרִים׃ - "And you shall be brought near in the morning by your tribes; and the tribe that Hashem singles out shall come forward by families, and the family that Hashem singles out shall come forward by households, and the household that Hashem singles out shall come forward man by man."
To identify the transgressor, they were instructed to approach the Aron (Ark), through which it would be revealed who took from the cherem. This process unfolded in concentric circles: first the tribes, and once the tribe was identified - the families within it, then the households, until reaching the sinner himself. Some say that the entire tribe did not step forward, but rather the prince of each tribe, and as soon as one prince was singled out, they knew the problem lay within that tribe.
And what is the meaning of "that Hashem singles out" (literally, captures)? Metzudat David explains that one would stand before the Aron unable to move: they paraded past the Aron, and whoever passed by and became frozen, unable to keep walking - the Aron had captured him, signaling that the problem lay in his tribe. Rashi explains that the Urim VeTumim illuminated, as we will see further on.
And why was this entire elaborate process necessary? Chazal relate that Yehoshua asked the Holy One, Blessed be He, to reveal to him who the sinner was: "Master of the Universe, You say 'Israel has sinned' and 'they have taken of the accursed thing' - reveal to me who it was." The Holy One, Blessed be He, replied: "Am I an informer to you? Am I a talebearer? If there is a problem - uncover it yourself; it is your responsibility to locate the sinner. Cast this lot, and through it you will know."
Another reason: He wanted everyone to have thoughts of teshuvah regarding this matter, and therefore he had everyone pass before the Ark. For as we said, if there is a sin in an individual, it is a sign of some flaw in the collective, and as they all passed by the Ark, they would all contemplate repentance. Moreover, had Yehoshua said, "It was revealed to me by prophecy that it is so-and-so," his family members would have contested it - and as we will see later, this indeed happened, for they did not believe it and refused to accept it - therefore it had to be done by lot, so that they would see that the matter came from Heaven. In addition, he did not want to humiliate the sinner, but rather gave him the opportunity to confess on his own.
"Shall be Burned with Fire" - Burning or Stoning
וְהָיָה הַנִּלְכָּד בַּחֵרֶם יִשָּׂרֵף בָּאֵשׁ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ כִּי עָבַר אֶת־בְּרִית יְהֹוָה וְכִי־עָשָׂה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And it shall be that he who is caught with the banned property shall be burned with fire, he and all that belongs to him, because he has transgressed the covenant of the Lord, and because he has committed an outrage in Israel.
This seems difficult: Achan's punishment was stoning, so why does it say here "shall be burned with fire"? Rashi explains: "Shall be burned with fire" refers to the tent and the movable property; "he and all that belongs to him" means in accordance with the law specified below, that he and the animals were stoned. Thus the resolution of the verse is: "He who is caught with the banned property" - whichever is fitting for burning shall be burned, and whichever is fitting for stoning shall be stoned, each according to its distinct ruling.
Radak asks why his children were punished. He answers: If his sons were adults, they were subject to punishment because they were accomplices to the act - as it was known that they assisted, or saw and kept silent. And he had no wife; or if he did have a wife, we must say that she knew nothing about it, and therefore we do not see that she was punished.
Malbim explains: By virtue of the actual violation of the ban, his penalty would be burning, for the banned property itself was designated for burning, and one who violated it is liable to burning. He sinned on two counts: against the Holy One, blessed be He - "because he has transgressed the covenant of the Lord," and against Israel - "and because he has committed an outrage in Israel," for he caused the defeat at Ai, and it was through his guilt. Why then was he ultimately stoned? Because although violating the cherem warrants burning, he also desecrated Shabbos, as the entire event occurred on Shabbos, and a desecrator of Shabbos is executed by stoning; and we know that one who is liable to two death penalties is subjected to the more severe of the two (kam lei b'drabbah minei). Therefore they also stoned his ox and his donkey, so that their death would not be more lenient than their owner's: if the owner was stoned, the ox and the donkey were also condemned to stoning.
Even though there were ostensibly no witnesses and warning (hasra'ah) here, since we know by the word of Hashem that he incurred the death penalty, and since there was an additional sin here for which he was liable to death, and since a king has the authority to execute even outside the standard rules written in the Torah - as we find with King David: "The man is deserving of death, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold," for there is no such halachah in the Torah that one who steals a lamb from his fellow is deserving of death in addition to paying fourfold, but a king has the power to erect safeguards and enact edicts - and especially since these rulings accord with the Torah, as he had desecrated Shabbos, he was therefore rightfully liable to stoning.
Bringing Forward the Tribes and the Families
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁבָטָיו וַיִּלָּכֵד שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה׃ - So Yehoshua rose early in the morning and brought Israel forward by its tribes, and the tribe of Yehudah was taken.
Rashi explains "and brought Israel forward by its tribes" - he brought them before the Choshen (breastplate), where the names of the tribes were inscribed. The Holy One, blessed be He, gave him a sign that the stone of the tribe that sinned would dim; and the stone of Yehudah dimmed, so they knew that the sin lay within Yehudah. According to Metzudas David, as we saw earlier, he passed them before the Ark, and whichever tribe the Ark held fast - they knew it was guilty regarding the cherem.
וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת־מִשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה וַיִּלְכֹּד אֵת מִשְׁפַּחַת הַזַּרְחִי וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת־מִשְׁפַּחַת הַזַּרְחִי לַגְּבָרִים וַיִּלָּכֵד זַבְדִּי׃ - And he brought forward the family of Yehudah, and he took the family of the Zarchites; and he brought forward the family of the Zarchites man by man, and Zavdi was taken.
The Malbim asks two questions. First: Why does it say "and he brought forward the family of Yehudah," when it should have said "and he brought forward the tribe of Yehudah by its families," just as it previously said, "and brought Israel forward by its tribes"? Second: Why does it say here "and he took (vayilkod) the family of the Zarchites" in the active voice, whereas everywhere else it says "was taken" (vayillached) in the passive - "and the tribe of Yehudah was taken," "and Zavdi was taken," "and Achan was taken"?
He explains: in all cases where vayilached is used in the passive sense ("was taken"), the Aron caught them. How? He brought forward Reuven, Shimon, Levi - and Yehudah was caught, so he did not need to continue bringing forward the rest. Once Yehudah was caught in the middle of the list, he did not bring forward Yissachar, Zevulun, Dan, Naftali, Gad, and Asher; rather, he released them all, knowing already that there was no fault among them. Therefore, in all these instances, the letter lamed is used: "He brought Israel forward lishvattav (by its tribes)" - meaning from among its tribes, not all of them; "He brought forward the family of the Zarchi lagevarim (by individual men)" - and not all the men, for once one was singled out in the middle, they did not proceed further; "He brought forward his household lagevarim, and Achan was taken." Wherever the lamed appears, it indicates that he did not present everyone, but selected from among them.
By contrast, regarding the tribe of Yehudah, it was different, as it says, "He brought forward the family of Yehudah and took the family of the Zarchi." How was it different? Here he brought forward all of them, and the Zarchi remained last; consequently, the Aron did not need to single it out. For if there were ten families and nine were brought forward without being caught, there is no need to bring the tenth: it is clear that it is the one identified. It is like flipping a coin and calling heads or tails: if yours landed on heads, I do not need to check what mine is, as there is no other option. Therefore, here it does not say lemishpechot Yehudah with a lamed, because the lamed would indicate that more remained after it, whereas here it was the very last; and therefore the active verb vayilchod ("and he took") is used, meaning that Yehoshua himself identified and took it, not the Aron. This is truly wonderful.
"Give Glory to Hashem" - Achan's Confession
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶל־עָכָן בְּנִי שִׂים־נָא כָבוֹד לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתֶן־לוֹ תוֹדָה וְהַגֶּד־נָא לִי מֶה עָשִׂיתָ אַל־תְּכַחֵד מִמֶּנִּי׃ - "Yehoshua said to Achan, 'My son, give glory, please, to Hashem, the God of Israel, and give Him confession; and tell me now what you have done, do not hide it from me.'"
Radak explains that Yehoshua asked him to confess his sin for two reasons. The first was to atone for the iniquity, so that his death would serve as his atonement, as all who are condemned to death confess. From here we see that his sin would indeed be atoned for through confession, for otherwise what reason would there be for him to confess? This is learned from what is stated later, "Hashem will trouble you on this day": Chazal expounded that "on this day" he is troubled, but not in the World to Come. That is to say, all judgment is here in this world, whereas for the World to Come he is purified through the punishment he receives and through the confession he made.
And the second reason, Radak says: so that Israel would acknowledge that the lottery, or the Aron's selection, was true. For otherwise they might say: Who says this is true? Perhaps it was fabricated, or perhaps some scheme was carried out by which the Aron supposedly seized him. It was necessary for them to acknowledge the truth of it, and how? By him personally confessing and declaring, "It is true, I am the one who sinned" - thereby proving that what the Aron indicated was absolute truth.
Chazal relate that initially Achan tried to evade the accusation. He said to him: "Yehoshua, are you coming against me through a lottery?" (This does not mean an ordinary lottery, but identification by the Aron or the stones of the Choshen.) "Behold, if I cast lots between you and Elazar the Kohen, the two greatest men of the generation, it would fall upon one of you!" And look at that argument: if I cast lots between the two of you, one of you will inevitably be picked; does that make him a transgressor? Furthermore, he challenged him: "Moshe, your teacher, stated in the Torah, 'By the testimony of two witnesses shall the condemned person be put to death' - yet you come to put me to death without witnesses, solely through a lottery?"
To this, Chazal state that Yehoshua replied: "I beg of you, do not cast doubt upon lotteries, for the Land of Israel is destined to be divided by lottery! If you cast doubt upon the lots now, when the tribal inheritances are distributed everyone will say, 'Why did he receive this portion and why did I receive that portion?' What turmoil would result - and you would be the cause of it, for having undermined faith in the lottery and in the division directed by the Aron." Therefore he told him, "and give Him confession" - admit your guilt, and through this people will believe in the lottery directed by the Aron, preventing any desecration of the honor of Heaven as if the Aron had not singled out the right person.
וַיַּעַן עָכָן אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וַיֹּאמַר אָמְנָה אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי לַיהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָזֹאת וְכָזֹאת עָשִׂיתִי׃ - "Achan answered Yehoshua and said, 'Truly I have sinned against Hashem, the God of Israel, and this and that I have done.'"
וָאֵרֶא בַשָּׁלָל אַדֶּרֶת שִׁנְעָר אַחַת טוֹבָה וּמָאתַיִם שְׁקָלִים כֶּסֶף וּלְשׁוֹן זָהָב אֶחָד חֲמִשִּׁים שְׁקָלִים מִשְׁקָלוֹ וָאֶחְמְדֵם וָאֶקָּחֵם וְהִנָּם טְמוּנִים בָּאָרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ הָאָהֳלִי וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ׃ - "'I saw among the spoil a fine Babylonian cloak, two hundred shekels of silver, and a gold bar weighing fifty shekels, and I coveted them and took them; behold, they are hidden in the ground inside my tent, with the silver underneath it.'"
The Cloak of Shinar
What is an aderet Shinar? Rashi explains: a garment of fine wool, and some versions read itztala Bavli - a mantle that came from Babylonia. Rashi adds: any king who had not acquired a palace in the Land of Israel felt his reign was incomplete, as it says, "And I gave you a desirable land, the heritage of the hosts of nations." The king of Babylon had a palace in Yericho, and whenever he came here he would wear this cloak. Metzudat Tziyon explains that an aderet is a distinguished garment, with the word aderet stemming from adir (magnificent), and Shinar is Babylonia. A leshon zahav (a tongue of gold) is an elongated ingot made of gold, shaped like a tongue.
Achan's Justifications
The Malbim shows that Achan continues with his justifications, putting forth argument after argument. The first: "And I saw among the spoils" - the word "among the spoils" (bashalal) was spoken in his defense, for the Torah states, "and you shall consume the spoil of your enemies." If so, this was the spoil of our enemies and belonged to us, and I thought that since it was spoil, it was permitted.
The second: "A mantle of Shinar" - this belonged to the king of Babylon and had come from another country. I thought that perhaps Yehoshua banned only property originating in Yericho and not property coming from elsewhere, and that property brought from another place was not included in the cherem. Just as we find regarding "you shall not leave alive any soul," which applies to those who dwell and reside in the Land, but a traveler who came from another land when they conquered the Land is not included in "you shall not leave alive any soul," since he is not among the dwellers of the Land nor is he a Canaanite. So too did I think regarding property that came from elsewhere - that a mantle brought from Shinar was not included in the cherem.
The third: "A goodly one" - meaning, he had a tremendous yetzer hara, for it was exceedingly alluring, and therefore I coveted it.
The fourth: "And two hundred shekels of silver, and an ingot of gold" - he was certain that metals were not included in the ban, for metals were not slated for burning but rather to be transferred to the treasury of Hashem. If so, what transgression did I commit? Me'ilah (misappropriation of consecrated property) - that something meant to go to the Mishkan came to me. I committed me'ilah, but not a violation of cherem, since presumably only garments and the like are burned, not metals.
The fifth: "And behold, they are hidden in the earth in the midst of my tent" - meaning: see, I derived no benefit from this, nor did I use it, and thus I did not even commit me'ilah. For with gold, which does not deteriorate through use, me'ilah is transgressed only when one benefits to the value of a perutah. He tells them: I did not even benefit from it, look, it is still buried; I neither benefited nor caused damage. "And the silver beneath it" - under the mantle, covered by it, and therefore it was not damaged at all, but rather safely preserved. All of this was intended to minimize his sin - classic justifications, certainly reminding us of our own ways.
"In the Midst of My Tent" - With the Letter Heh
Why does the verse say "betoch ha'oholi" with the letter heh, rather than simply "be'oholi"? The Malbim explains that he had a private tent, separate from the rest of his household, and within the tent were two rooms: one large, primary chamber, and a smaller one. He wanted to emphasize that this was in his own tent and not his family's, and the definite article heh indicates that it was in the larger, well-known section, in the main room.
Accessories of Idolatry and the Enactment of "Al Kein Nekaveh"
Some say that everything he took belonged to the accessories of idolatry. The golden ingot was what they would place in the mouth of the terafim (household idols), which spoke through sorcery, and in taking it he transgressed what the Torah commanded: "You shall not covet the silver and gold that is on them, nor take it for yourself." This is what the Holy One, blessed be He, meant when He said, "Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant" - referring to idolatry.
Our Sages also said that after Achan confessed, he composed the prayer of "Al kein nekaveh Lecha" - the first letters of "Al Kein Nekaveh" (ע-כ-נ) form the acronym Achan. And there he states, "and the idols will be utterly cut down" - corresponding to what he had taken from idolatry.
The Running to the Tent
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַלְאָכִים וַיָּרֻצוּ הָאֹהֱלָה וְהִנֵּה טְמוּנָה בְּאָהֳלוֹ וְהַכֶּסֶף תַּחְתֶּיהָ׃ - So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and behold, it was hidden in his tent, and the silver underneath it.
Why did they run? Rashi explains: so that members of the tribe of Judah would not get there first, tamper with the evidence, and conceal the facts, as they might wish to protect their fellow tribesman; therefore, they ran to retrieve the items immediately. Radak, however, explains: "and they ran to the tent" - out of joy, because it was now clearly revealed who had violated the cherem and that the rest of Israel was innocent. Their running stemmed from the relief and joy that the guilty party had been identified - that not all of us are guilty, but rather there is one individual who bears the primary blame.
וַיִּקָּחוּם מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל וַיְבִאוּם אֶל־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְאֶל כָּל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּצִּקֻם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה׃ - And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them to Joshua and to all the Children of Israel, and laid them out before the Lord.
What is meant by vayatzikum ("and they laid them out")? Radak explains: they set them before the Lord so that all of Israel would see them and realize how severe the cherem is, warning them to be careful neither to covet nor to take anything from the ban. Ralbag explains that "so they would know" means they would know that the confession was genuine, that Achan confessed to an act he actually committed, and no one could claim he was coerced into confessing to something he had not done.
A story is told that Gorbachev once lost his watch, and immediately contacted the KGB to launch an investigation. An investigation was opened, and an hour later Gorbachev called them back and said: 'You can close the investigation, I found it - I forgot the watch in the bathroom.' They told him: 'That is impossible, we already have three people who confessed!' So too in our case, people might have argued: Well, Achan confessed because he had no choice, he was forced, who knows what they did to him to make him confess. Therefore, Scripture tells us, "And they took them out of the midst of the tent, and brought them to Joshua... and laid them out before the Lord" - so that it would be clear to all that Achan's confession corresponded to physical facts on the ground. This served as proof, as Malbim elaborates, that what Achan said was true, and that he confessed to an act he actually committed.
The Valley of Achor
וַיִּקַּח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עָכָן בֶּן־זֶרַח וְאֶת־הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת־הָאַדֶּרֶת וְאֶת־לְשׁוֹן הַזָּהָב וְאֶת־בָּנָיו וְאֶת־בְּנֹתָיו וְאֶת־שׁוֹרוֹ וְאֶת־חֲמֹרוֹ וְאֶת־צֹאנוֹ וְאֶת־אָהֳלוֹ וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמּוֹ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֹתָם עֵמֶק עָכוֹר׃ - And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the cloak, and the bar of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his donkeys, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had; and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor.
Why did he take everyone? Rashi explains that he brought his sons and daughters and all of Israel so they would witness his punishment and be warned not to act as he did. In other words, according to Rashi, his children were not put to death here; they were brought only to witness his punishment, similar to the concept of "that all women may be chastened" - when a sotah is brought to the Temple, women are brought to watch and take moral heed not to emulate her ways. We have already seen another explanation: that his children actually assisted in taking from the cherem, and according to that approach, that was why they were executed. As for his ox and donkey, all agree that the intention was to destroy them, as it says, "And it shall be, that he that is taken with the devoted thing shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has," and they were certainly put to death.
Radak explains that it says "Achan the son of Zerah" rather than "the son of Carmi, the son of Zavdi, the son of Zerah" because it links him to his great-grandfather, skipping two generations for brevity, as Zerah was the head of the family clan; the text therefore used a concise phrasing without reciting the entire genealogy again. Radak further asks: What does it mean that "they brought them up to the Valley of Achor" - after all, does one not go down into a valley rather than up? He answers that there was apparently a mountain separating them, and they first ascended the mountain in order to descend from it into the valley.
They Stoned, Burned, and Pelted with Stones
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מֶה עֲכַרְתָּנוּ יַעְכָּרְךָ יְהֹוָה בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה וַיִּרְגְּמוּ אֹתוֹ כָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶבֶן וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ אֹתָם בָּאֵשׁ וַיִּסְקְלוּ אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים׃ - And Joshua said: "Why have you troubled us? The Lord shall trouble you this day." And all Israel stoned him with stones, and they burned them with fire, and pelted them with stones.
There is a threefold punishment mentioned here: vayirgemu (they stoned), vayisrefu (they burned), and vayiskelu (they pelted with stones). Rashi explains: "And all Israel stoned him with stones" - because he desecrated the Sabbath, for the misappropriation of the cherem took place on Shabbat, and a Sabbath desecrator is subject to execution by stoning. "And they burned them in fire" - this refers to the tent and the movable property, Achan's possessions. "And they pelted them with stones" - this refers to the oxen and animals, for we have seen that an animal condemned along with an offender is also stoned like the person who is condemned.
The Radak cites another explanation in the name of his father: their sentence was burning, as this was the explicit warning given beforehand - "he and all that belongs to him shall be burned in fire" - and this was a Heavenly decree. What, then, is the meaning of "and they stoned him"? While they were leading him to the burning, the people pelted him with stones along the way out of sheer fury at him: "Look what you caused, look what you have done!" Afterward, when they arrived at the Valley of Achor, they burned him and everything he possessed. And why does the verse repeat, "and they pelted them with stones," after stoning had already been mentioned? The Radak's father explains that after they burned them, they erected a mound of stones over him, and that is "and they pelted them with stones" - they cast stones onto the place where he was burned, creating a mound. According to this, it is clear there were three stages: his legal sentence was burning; as they led him to be burned, they pelted him with stones; and after he was burned, they made a heap of stones over him.
The Ralbag raises a question as to why his sons and daughters were punished when they had not sinned in this matter, an issue we touched upon earlier. The Ralbag answers: one could say they were minors, and were thus included in the "tally of his possessions" that Hashem commanded to destroy. This is particularly so because when children are minors, they can be held responsible for the sin of their father, just as Chazal taught that at the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them, "Bring guarantors," and they answered, "Our children will be guarantors for us." As for what the verse states, "Fathers shall not be put to death for children, nor shall children be put to death for fathers" - that applies when they are legally responsible adults; but with minors, the Gemara enumerates several reasons why a person's children may die young, which indicates that punishment can indeed apply through them. A second possibility: they were brought there merely to witness the execution and take heed, as we mentioned earlier. And a third possibility: they were accomplices to the crime and covered for their father, assuming they were adults, and were therefore punished as partners in the sin.
וַיָּקִימוּ עָלָיו גַּל־אֲבָנִים גָּדוֹל עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וַיָּשָׁב יְהֹוָה מֵחֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ עַל־כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא עֵמֶק עָכוֹר עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃ - And they raised over him a great heap of stones, which remains to this day. And Hashem turned back from His burning wrath; therefore, that place was named the Valley of Achor to this day.
"The Valley of Achor" - named after what Yehoshua said to him, "Why have you troubled us (achartanu)?" The meaning of achor is like murky water (mayim achurim): you brought the Jewish people into a state of turbidity and defilement. Until now they were clear and pure, and now they are muddied by their iniquity, for the sin troubled and clouded them.
Achan and Chiel of Beit Ha'eli
The Rama of Fano states that Achan is Chiel of Beit Ha'eli, meaning Chiel was the reincarnation of Achan. Since Achan violated the ban of Yericho, he was the one who returned, sinned, and ultimately rebuilt Yericho - "at the cost of his firstborn he laid its foundation, and at the cost of his youngest he set up its gates." Afterward, it is cited that he was the one who hid beneath the altar to ignite the fire for the prophets of Baal, as Chazal taught that Chiel of Beit Ha'eli hid there during the episode of Eliyahu at Mount Carmel; he hid beneath the altar of the Baal worshipers to ignite the fire at the critical moment, so they would say, "Fire has descended from heaven." In the end, a snake came and bit him, and he died. In light of this, it is noted that the name "Achan" is related to achna, achnai, meaning a serpent: since Chiel of Beit Ha'eli was Achan, an achnai (serpent) came and exacted retribution from him for what he had done. This is especially fitting since we know that "one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake"; he breached the fence set by Yehoshua and violated the cherem, and therefore a snake bit him.
In summary:
Chapter 7 opens with the sin of a single individual and concludes with a mound of stones in the Valley of Achor, and throughout, it teaches the fundamental principles of mutual responsibility (arevut): all of Israel is a single body, and rot in one limb endangers the entire organism. We learned the difference between an actual punishment, which strikes only the sinner, and the concealment of the Divine Countenance (hester panim), in which whoever finds himself in harm's way is harmed, even if he is not the sinner. We saw how the moment Divine Providence was withdrawn, errors began: the spies scouted the city of Ai rather than the surrounding land, failed to take Beit El and Beit Aven into account, and Yehoshua did not march at the head of the army - leading to the defeat. We witnessed Yehoshua's prayer with its two arguments, from the past and from the future, the merit of Avraham and the dust placed on the head, and the process of the lottery, which was designed both to inspire collective repentance and to strengthen trust in lotteries for the future. We learned about the three dimensions of Achan's sin - its essence, form, and purpose - and the rationalizations with which he attempted to minimize his guilt, contrasted with his confession, which restored the honor of Heaven and served as his atonement: "on this day" he was troubled, but not in the World to Come. Above all, we are left with the profound lesson: "An Israelite, even though he has sinned, remains an Israelite" - yet if the sin could occur in the individual, it is a sign that the collective was not entirely untainted either, and the responsibility for rectification rests upon us all.